Harper & Afghanistan - Thoughts?

[rebellious_L]

Iraq has nothing to do with this discussion. Iraq and Afghanistan are two completely different issues.

 

Invading afghanistan is not an "eye for an eye attitude." The Taliban was harbouring terrorists, and as long as they had that safe haven they would be able to orchestrate future attacks. It is about prevention of a future attack, not retaliation. And now that they are there, they simply cannot pull out. You can't just remove a government and provide no alternative. I agree that the UN should take over operations in the south and instead of bitching to th U.S. all the time would take some iniative and do something instead of sitting on their collective useless asses and contemplating how shitty the world is.

Edited March 29, 2006 by rebellious_L

[Moonlight_Graham]

Converge,

 

Afghanistan & the Taliban harboured terrorists. The Taliban was bad, and needed to be removed. Its not a question of 'revenge on the terrorists and the brown people'. 3000 or so people died on 9/11. Does that in itself justify us and other nations killing thousands of Afghans etc.? No. However, if you let terrorists and such governments like this remain, then someday it may be a nuclear bomb exploding in NYC or London or Toronto, killing hundreds of thousands.

 

Is that worth trying to prevent? Fuck yeah. Unfortunately we haven't discovered a better way to remove threats like the Taliban other than miltary force. And unfortunately, innocent people will die like in all war.

 

Whether the U.S. and other nations can improve the way their military fuctions and make it safer so less innocents are killed is totally another subject. But IMO the war in Afghanistan is just. It will make us safer, and overall in the long run it will make the people in Afghanistan (especially the women) safer & better way of living.

[Converge]

"However, if you let terrorists and such governments like this remain, then someday it may be a nuclear bomb exploding in NYC or London or Toronto, killing hundreds of thousands."

 

or...

 

if you let terrorist western governments reign there will be invading armies built up and deployed, bombs blowing up in Tikrit, Baghdad or Al Falujah...Hundreds of thousands will be killed.

 

Not racist? then whats the difference between us attacking someone who offends our way of living when compared to those who attack us for offending theirs? the only real difference is that we've attacked them endlessly while the civilian populations all but cheers them on while they've only managed to attack us once.

 

We are defending ourself by destroying them, we are good a mighty.

They are evil for defending themselves. Dirty terrorists.

[rebellious_L]

"However, if you let terrorists and such governments like this remain, then someday it may be a nuclear bomb exploding in NYC or London or Toronto, killing hundreds of thousands."

 

or...

 

if you let terrorist western governments reign there will be invading armies built up and deployed, bombs blowing up in Tikrit, Baghdad or Al Falujah...Hundreds of thousands will be killed.

 

Not racist? then whats the difference between us attacking someone who offends our way of living when compared to those who attack us for offending theirs? the only real difference is that we've attacked them endlessly while the civilian populations all but cheers them on while they've only managed to attack us once.

 

We are defending ourself by destroying them, we are good a mighty.

They are evil for defending themselves. Dirty terrorists.

There is clearly a difference between targeting a countries military abilites and office buildings, but you don't seem to understand this.

 

What you are saying is that we should allow terrorists to remain in Afghanistan and sit idly watching the show while thousands of people die, who's only crime was living in a populated city in a country ran by republican jackasses. When someone murders thousands of people for no apparent reason we should do nothing about it. Think about it, please.

[Converge]

There is clearly a difference between targeting a countries military abilites and office buildings, but you don't seem to understand this.

 

First, lets not make this personalized. your making judgments on my understanding...

 

Thank god the fatalities abroad are all militant fighters. *Phew*

 

 

"What you are saying is that we should allow terrorists to remain in Afghanistan and sit idly watching the show while thousands of people die, who's only crime was living in a populated city in a country ran by republican jackasses. When someone murders thousands of people for no apparent reason we should do nothing about it. Think about it, please."

 

Or we could sit idly by watching thousands of people die whos only crime was sharing the national borders with a dictarorship or group of terrorists? and we should send troops to aid their slaughter?

 

"someone murders thousands of people for no apparent reason"

 

for no apparent what? Out of nowhere, emerging from a complete vaccum a group of guys got together and decided to fly some planes into a building?

 

Double check on that, there are apparent and clearly stated reasons. Much more clearly than our (we are stopping terrorists.....giving freedom, these people need democracy.....allowing human dignity......love) shifting reasons.

[garsk]

if you let terrorist western governments reign there will be invading armies built up and deployed, bombs blowing up in Tikrit, Baghdad or Al Falujah...Hundreds of thousands will be killed.

 

i love how is coversation went from harper in afganistan to the war in iraq.

 

but i will say it again. i do like the fact that Prime Minister Harper (man that feels weird to say) has taken a liking to the Armed Force's. And this is after the three days of attacks against Canadian troops, with one just being killed in a fire fight. Considering the fact that last two liberal governments just robbed the military of equipment and personal, hopefully Harper will put some back in.

[Converge]

Or we could sit idly by watching thousands of people die whos only crime was sharing the national borders with a dictarorship or group of terrorists? and we should send troops to aid their slaughter?

dropping Iraq, the fact still remains.

[rebellious_L]

The Taliban would have allowed terrorists to continue their operations.

 

The Taliban had 90% control of Afghanistan as of September 11, 2001.

 

Afghanistan has had a long history of civil wars, and with the brutality of the Taliban regime, it is highly likely that a more deadly civil war was in the future for this country.

 

The Taliban killed 10,000 civilians in the civil war that saw them take power

 

The Taliban were widely criticized by Western countries for their oppression of women. Women were strictly limited in their ability to work in public places. However, they were allowed to set up their own businesses from their houses; they were also permitted to work in certain medical positions so they could treat female patients. Women could not work if they had a baby, in which case they had to stay home and care for their children. The Taliban believed women should stay home in order that their children did not have to grow up in the care of another, and also believed that work is the duty of the male in the house and to reject this duty was haraam.

 

The Taliban religion minister, Al-Haj Maulwi Qalamuddin, told the New York Times that "To a country on fire, the world wants to give a match. Why is there such concern about women? Bread costs too much. There is no work. Even boys are not going to school. And yet all I hear about are women. Where was the world when men here were violating any woman they wanted?"

 

Although the Taliban claimed that the education of girls in rural Afghanistan was increasing, a UNESCO report said that there was "a whopping 65% drop in their enrollment. In schools run by the Directorate of Education, only 1 per cent of the pupils are girls. The percentage of female teachers, too, has slid from 59.2 per cent in 1990 to 13.5 per cent in 1999."

 

Supporters of the Taliban suggested that the depression and the other problems plaguing Afghani women were the result of dire poverty, years of war, the bad economy, and the fact that many were left war widows, and could no longer provide food for their families without some sort of international aid.

 

Women were also obliged to wear the burqa when appearing in public, and failure to do so could attract a public beating [2] (video). The Taliban stated that women were obliged to wear the burqa due to Islamic teachings which state that women must cover up her body in front of non-mahram men, and that both men and women should dress modestly.

 

The people are better off. Yes, some people had to die but more would die in the long run if this problem (the taliban) was not solved.

 

As someone said before, if someone attacks your country, you have to defend yourself. If you had family in the WTC, pentagon, or that flight in pennsylvannia, would you not want the people who murdered them brought to justice?

[borntohula]

As someone said before, if someone attacks your country, you have to defend yourself. If you had family in the WTC, pentagon, or that flight in pennsylvannia, would you not want the people who murdered them brought to justice?

when does "in defence" become overkill (pun acknowledged but not intended)???

[Converge]

and what is the difference between the "terroists" acting in vengence of their fallen kin and us acting in defence of ours?

 

Im aware of the reasons for conflict, just trying to highlight the fact that we are doing 10000x more damage than they have yet looking at ourselves as noble.

There is no difference between Canadian troops carrying out targeted assasinations and Al-Q crashing an airplane into a building except for the spin coverage that allows the imperialist white forces the support of the oblivious populus and the ill founded feeling of pride for making the world a 'safer place'

[garsk]

if we are still going to bring up iraq in this debate, can we please look at iraq's track record? lets see there was...

 

-the Iran-Iraq war in the 1980's

-Iraq's invasion of Kuwait in the early 1990's

-Iraq's scud bombings of Israel and Saudi Arabia

-Iraq's funding of PLA and other groups in Palestine who kill innocent people

-Iraq's uses of chemical weapons on it's on people.

-Iraq's former rape and torture room's

 

...but wait, the US, the UK, France and Gremany gave them weapons during the Iran-Iraq war, so we will forget all those things. (sorry i had to beat someone to the punch)

 

With all the things we can say about the US and Iraq, we can say about...

Russia and checneya

China and Tibet

The Sudan with Dafore

etc....

 

but none of them involve the US so who really cares?

[Converge]

-Iraq's funding of PLA and other groups in Palestine who kill innocent people

 

and the U.S's funding of the Isreali military that uses gun ships to shoot and kill innocent people in Refugee camps...

 

Im out for the weekend, if this conversation is still running when im home i've got plenty to say about the U.S funding wars

 

But, to go to the main point:

 

the involvment of Canadian troops in Afgahnistan frees up U.S. troops so they can be deployed in Iraq. Canada may think we are free from blood on our hands, but we are just as involved in this war(s) as the U.S. who we openly critisize. \

 

Have a good weeekend!

[garsk]

yes the american's do send money to israel who do kill innocent people, but armies mostly target military target, i.e. buildings, weapons and personal. saddly they miss more then they should. were as "terrorist" target people, i.e. the world trade center. the point i was trying to make before was. Do you not care about other conflicks in the world? or do you just dont like the United States?

[Moonlight_Graham]

"However, if you let terrorists and such governments like this remain, then someday it may be a nuclear bomb exploding in NYC or London or Toronto, killing hundreds of thousands."

 

or...

 

if you let terrorist western governments reign there will be invading armies built up and deployed, bombs blowing up in Tikrit, Baghdad or Al Falujah...Hundreds of thousands will be killed.

 

Not racist? then whats the difference between us attacking someone who offends our way of living when compared to those who attack us for offending theirs? the only real difference is that we've attacked them endlessly while the civilian populations all but cheers them on while they've only managed to attack us once.

 

We are defending ourself by destroying them, we are good a mighty.

They are evil for defending themselves. Dirty terrorists.

i don't think its racist, but what you say does have a good point. I have thought of such things myself many times, how it is in a sense hypocrytical.

 

We call ourselves Freedom Fighters & our soldiers heroes, and call Bin Laden a terrorist. Many Arabs call Bin Laden a Freedom Fighter & a hero, and refer to us as terrorists.

 

In a way, it can be really fucked up. A big cycle of violence. We cause chais in Arab counties in the past, then Al-Queda etc. strike back at us...then we go into Afghanistan & Iraq etc and bomb the shit out of them etc.

 

But whats the answer? We don't do anything - we be pacifists, and terrorists very likely keep attacking us because there are no consequences (and a lot of them vengeful assholes & a disgrace to their faiths).

 

Its a HUGE shame that its seems the West doesn't give a shit about the innocents they kill. But in the end, when the body counts are in, its really comes down to "its either us of them". 100,000 Afghan civilians killed or 100,000 Canadian civilians killed? Take your pick. I truly feel horrible for all this violence & am a compassionate person, but when shit hits the fan & i'd have to choose i'd rather it be their families dead than me & my family dead.

 

War if completely fucked up, thats all i'm really sure of.

[garsk]

War if completely fucked up, thats all i'm really sure of.

 

i will second that.

 

 

but will greed, religion, and difference of opinion there will aways be war. and how do we solve those three things?

[Converge]

Do you not care about other conflicks in the world? or do you just dont like the United States?

 

I was trying to keep the topic to Afghanistan and Iraq, so it is possible to see how someone could see that as not Liking the U.S. as there is plent to list about their errors. But in short, No i do not "dislike" the states. its just luck (if i can use that word) that the U.S. happens to be on the aggresive end of a variety of conflicts worth world interest.

 

i do pay attention to them other conflicts...but have to admit thats a weird question.

[Doc]

The thing that alarms me the most about Afghanistan is how little everyone knows about the country and it's history. We're propping up a man who was exiled long before the Taliban seized power in 96, who is guarded by foreign mercenaries and has 0 control outside of Kabul.

 

What confuses most Canadians, (and I can only imagine how many Afghani's) is Canada's actual role in Afghanistan. On the one hand, we have a Provinicial Reconstruction Team (which I fully support) working in tandem with an offensively minded force a little further south performing confrontational missions (which I don't support).

 

Canada was the nation that brought forth the idea of peacekeeping, and as many failures as the PKO's have had, there are as many successes. This, however, is not a PKO. This is something completely different, and I'm not sure that most people understand a lot about what is going on over seas and the motivations for said actions. I'm not taking myself out of that group, as I understand perhaps just a little more then the average person, though I don't claim to know it all.

 

Harper has also stated that there will be no discussion on this issue at all. What kind of democratically elected leader isn't open to any kind of discussion on topics that actually influence Canadian National Security? And believe me, this will effect national security, as our troops are already being targeted over there, and that can only mean that our civilians will be targeted here as well (though, this will take some time, and as much as I pray that it won't happen, I know history dictates otherwise).

 

As far as the Taliban goes, yes they were a wholly repressive regime, intent on implementing radicalized, fundamentalist Islam on the entire country, hence the name change to the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan. Lets not forget that this group was funded by the CIA during the Soviet-Afghan war, and that the US was in many ways ready to do business with the Taliban, so long as they were permitted to run their pipeline across Afghan territory. There is considerable evidence to suggest that the US was pursuing more and more aggressive diplomatic means to getting bin Laden out of Afghanistan, but it was becoming quite clear that more forceful means needed to be used.

 

To make my position quite clear though, I don't support any military action in Afghanistan. If we have specialized troops on the ground in order to help rebuild cities that have been smashed by 25+ years of fighting, then I'm all for it. However, I cannot support a system that has our troops fulfilling a dual role in a country that is incredibly xenophobic anyway.

 

I have more to post, I just need to think some more, so I'll either start a new post, or just edit this one.

 

D

Edited April 6, 2006 by Doc

[garsk]

we all know that the CIA funded the Taliban during the Soviet-Afgan war in the 1980's. But also funded the norther alliance too. All the US was doing back in the 1980's was the same thing that the Soviets was doing back during the Vietnam war. they saw two countries fighting and offered to help out the side they liked. every other country would have done the same thing, for example, the british SAS help training the Afgan's during the Afgan-Soviet war. Do i believe that what the American and British did during that time period was right? Yes and No, yes they should have helped them out when they were invaded, no because after the soviets left, they left too. they should have made sure that the government was stable when they left. but should we be there to ensure that the taliban and al-quada doesnt take over again? yes, i think it would be better for the world if they were in power and could attack other countries.

 

if freedom fights are fighting for there home lands, what is al-quada fighting for?

 

also, and i know that this is going to sound racist, but i just gotta ask, can anyone name a stable islamic government that isnt a dictatorship? i was just thinking some of them, like Pakistan, Syria and Iran are.

[Converge]

Well said Doc!

 

Garsk: I think Al-Q fights for all of Islam (only not all of Islam. Its like a self elected militant representation because we know that all of Islam does not support Al-Q)

I think it is important to remember the destabalization of nations and funding by the U.S. was on a far different level. The Communists were sending arms and support to communist nations in conflict. The U.S. were funding, providing arms, or organizing coups against democratically elected groups. On further consideration im sure the communists were doing the same same same but Communism is dead and stopped it. the U.S. are still living it and have to be held accountable to their past.

 

1979-Iran

1979-1980- Jamaica- Financial destabalization of Government of Michael Manley (with propaganda and demonstrations to shut down elections)

1979- Military aid to rebel forces and conservative mullahs to overthrow the government (aborted upon soviet intervention)

1979- Seychelles (destabalization of France Albert Renes government.

1980- continued aid to Afghanistan rebels

1980- grenada Mercenary coup overthrow of government of Maurice Bishop

1990-Dominican- financial support to overthrow Olivier Seraphim in elections

1980- Guyana- Assasination of Walter Rodeny (opposition leader)

1980-1984. Nicarauga

......to name a few

 

As for your question i think without saying "this might sound racist" you could have asked that question no problem. Its a completley rational thought. I don't know any answers to it. But i am now curious. I am also curious to know what is destabalizing them? The common line among neo-cons is that Islam is inherently poor and we should cristianize them before they can live stable...but who knows what they smoke/snort/drink.